Kris, I drew this I swear. I went through the last few pages and realized that I never uploaded it. I must of forgot and now I can't find the file. Oh well, I'll guess I just have to redo it. Or maybe the joke is over now.

Going through these pages I had this thought: Someone should take all of our panels and print up a benefit book for the CBLDF. I mean Neil Gaiman just received his own convention. Where's Scott's convention? Where's Understanding Scott McCloud 2004? At the very least, where is the benefit book?

Heh, I'd go to a Scott McCloud convention. I'd even dress up as a micropayment!_________________BLOW UP THE INTERNET

Someone should take all of our panels and print up a benefit book for the CBLDF.

I'll second that motion! Anything that could make them some more bucks is a good idea in my book. Any thoughts on how this could actually get done?_________________www.emaki.net - Studying the Language of "comics"

I'll second that motion! Anything that could make them some more bucks is a good idea in my book. Any thoughts on how this could actually get done?

First, the owners of the art would have to give their permission to be included. You would need high resolution files of all of the images. We would need a volunteer, or volunteers, to compile the images into a book format (this could also be done by committee). Then funds would have to be raised for printing cost. It's not to complicated but it seem like we would need a lot more pictures, I think we only have 58 so far.

Oh? and I guess we should ask Scott for his permission too. After all:

That seems unlikely to exist for at least several of the images, which were probably created in the resolution that they appeared here (I'm guessing). But that is certainly not an insurmountable obstacle!

I'm not sure I believe this is a book anyone would actually want to buy, since it's all art from a single thread at this forum. (I assume and hope that the art would not be removed from zwol.org in an effort to sell the hypothetical book!) The art would lose a lot being printed in b&w, and the book would cost more to print in color. But I don't know. Maybe the "it's for a good cause" factor would kick in.

I'm not sure I believe this is a book anyone would actually want to buy, since it's all art from a single thread at this forum. (I assume and hope that the art would not be removed from zwol.org in an effort to sell the hypothetical book!)

That's why we would need more art. And maybe some stuff from the more famous in the comic world.

William G wrote:

Considering that I only used altered copyrighted images, my contributions should be left out.

Since they are a parady of the original I believe copyright laws would protect your art. It would be ironic if the CBLF was called upon to defend a book that was meant to raise funds for them.

William G wrote:

I dont even know if greg grabbed them anyway, so maybe it doesnt matter.

Materials that incorporated other people's copyrighted permission, such as William G's and mine, probably do not qualify as fair use via parody. Read up on the Penny Arcade Strawberry Shortcake incident, where they thought the same thing as you, and found that they were wrong: adapting material A (e.g. Strawberry Shortcake, or, in my case, Xaio Xaio 3) in combination with B (American McGee, or, in my case, Scott McCloud) for purpose of poking fun at B (American McGee/Scott McCloud) does not constitute parody of A (Strawberry Shortcake/Xaio Xaio) and hence does not qualify as fair use.

I had the impression that the law was quite murky on that question of fair use and parody and so forth, and that in the real world it boils down to who has the most money and lawyers. Penny Arcade decided they could not afford to fight a multimillion dollar greeting card company, even though it was not clear they were in the wrong (as I recall). Similar examples abound. In some sense this is an academic distinction since the practical effect works out the same, though. :/ Of course many times such small-time parodies go under the radar and never cause a stink.

It is murky, but it of course does not boil down to whoever has the most money. At a certain point the money ties, and the law wins out. And the point in the PA case (and I think it applies to this case) is that there are precedents against it. It's not open and shut; who can say how things would turn out. But in particular it's not trivially obviously going to be a winnable fair use case, money aside.

In 1997, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the work at issue in this case was a satire, not a parody, and thus not entitled to fair use protection. The controversy in this case centered on The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice, a book that reproduced the verbal and graphic style of the Dr. Seuss The Cat in the Hat children?s books to re-tell the tale of the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Concerning the purpose and character of the defendant?s use, the court concluded that The Cat NOT in the Hat did not constitute a legitimate parody. It dissected the definition of parody and determined that in order to be a parody in the legal sense, a work must at least in part target the plaintiff?s copyrighted work. The Ninth Circuit held that the critical difference is that in a parody, the original work is the object of the defendant?s commentary, and in a satire, the copyrighted work is merely ?a vehicle to poke fun at a different target.?

The Court held that the self-titled ?parody? was in fact something less than transformative, because the original was not the focus of the work?s criticism.

That doesn't make sense at all. If that was the case, MAD magazine would be in litigation's for the next 100 years. One court ruling doesn't make a law, it just interprets it. Some other judge down the road could interpret the law it differently and overturn it down the road.

But to be on the safe side we should try not to use any copyrighted material.

For those interested copyright and copyright myths, Jim Zubkavich (of Makeshift Miracle fame) has a short but very good list of sites at http://makeshiftmiracle.com/Links.html (scroll down to the "Web Comic Marketing" section).

Oh, and I'd be willing to volunteer to do the layout for the book since I do that all day at work anyway. Are we really going to do this? I think it's a great idea if Scott gives his OK._________________Check out my NEW blog - PuppetVision
Retro-style puppet film and video goodness, delivered fresh to your computer each day!

Last edited by BuckBeaver on Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

Personally, I think it would be cool to just maintain a permanent online gallery -- just a slightly more elaborate version of Greg's archive maybe. Maybe something with a big thumbnail front page, and a little submission page with a space for comments.

If you start to go toward print, you'd have to think about selling it, and then all those rights issues would come up, not to mention the hassle of printing generally and the inability to continually update.

I can't put off updating the existing archive any longer, then, so that you have the complete set so far. I'll get to it in the next couple days, then._________________Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.